It is necessary to understand Israel's conditions driven by its demand "Security-first".
Israel withdrawal is from the West Bank and Gaza has been partial, phased, conditional and revisable. The interim period is indefinite. Further withdrawals/loosening of controls depend on judgements about security performance made by Israel. This situation can be defined as Asymmetric containment, which means that Israel does not see a long-term solution to the "Palestinian problem": Zionism requires a client Palestinian Authority to help manage the problem, not solve it. This asymmetric containment has implications on the movement of goods and people, Palestinian fiscal priorities (bias towards security), trade taxation, and monetary restrictions (the Paris Protocol). These conditions are unique in the history of withdrawals from occupied territories.
Strategic Israeli policy-makers also foresee permanent containment and client status and they are mentioning this policy very openly. The Israeli Chief of Staff Moshe Ya'alon speaks in a Haaretz interview of the two state solutions initiating a period of war and openly says Gaza withdrawal is reversible.
There are many possibilities why Israel insists on a client Palestinian state.
The first possibility Israel felt its security would be threatened if a sovereign Palestinian state were created. The second possibility, Israel could not remove most of the settlers within "Palestinian territories" and therefore required a permanent "compliance" by the Palestinian state.
The third and the most reasonable possibility Israel see no long-term solution to the "Palestinian problem". They are only managing the problem. Israel lacks constitution and fixed boarders, which is fully consistent with Zionism's call for continual expansion. Israel as a Jewish State needs a substantial majority of the population. Israeli think tanks have suggested population and land transfers to reduce the internal Palestinian population. These transfers are more likely if they are offered to a non-viable Bantustans state.
The author draws three scenarios for the next period:
1) Best case scenario: Asymmetric containment ends when security is delivered.
2) Intermediate scenario: Israel wants containment but is forced to retreat, critical restrictions (on trade, taxation, and international treaties) disappear
3) Negative scenario: Containment continues, critical restrictions remain, and external powers assist survival strategies.